New federal rules now require agencies to kill old ones first

What it does

This bill requires federal agencies to prove that any major new regulation (one costing $100 million or more annually) is 'budget neutral'—meaning they must identify and repeal an existing rule of equal cost before issuing the new one. Agencies must publish a statement in the Federal Register declaring whether each major rule meets this test. The bill benefits regulated industries and businesses by making it harder to issue new protections; it costs ordinary citizens by potentially blocking or delaying safety, environmental, labor, and consumer rules.

Why we flagged it

The bill does not repeal rules directly; instead, it imposes a procedural requirement that makes new regulation contingent on eliminating old ones. This is a structural deregulation tool disguised as a 'cost transparency' measure. The title emphasizes 'accountability' and 'transparency,' but the mechanism is a one-way ratchet favoring industry.

What the text implies

• The 'budget neutral' test applies only to NEW rules, not existing ones. Agencies cannot repeal a costly rule without issuing a new one of equal cost, creating a regulatory lock-in that protects incumbent rules from scrutiny.
• The definition of 'cost' includes 'cost to understand or implement the rule'—a vague metric that could inflate estimates of compliance burden and make new rules appear more expensive than they are, biasing the analysis against regulation.
• Agencies must identify rules to repeal BEFORE promulgating a new rule, shifting the burden of proof onto regulators and creating delay and litigation risk. This is a de facto veto on regulation absent political consensus to eliminate something else.
• The bill does not require cost-benefit analysis or net welfare assessment—only budget neutrality. A new rule could be far more beneficial than the rule it replaces, but if the old rule is cheaper to comply with, the new rule is blocked.
• The 'major rule' threshold ($100M annually) is low enough to capture most significant regulations (environmental, labor, financial, healthcare) but high enough to exempt routine agency guidance, creating asymmetric pressure on protective rules.

Who it affects

The bill creates a structural barrier to new regulation by requiring agencies to eliminate existing rules to offset new ones. This disproportionately harms citizens who depend on health, safety, environmental, and consumer protections—which often impose costs on industry—while benefiting businesses seeking lighter regulation. The 'budget neutral' requirement is asymmetrical: it does not require agencies to repeal costly rules to fund beneficial ones, only the reverse.

Who stands to gain

• regulated industries (manufacturing, energy, finance, pharmaceuticals)
• large corporations with compliance infrastructure
• business lobbying groups

Named in the bill

Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Federal agencies, Federal Register

Where it stands

• Mar 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Mar 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.